Archive for the ‘Chapter 5: Perception, Cognition and Emotion’ Category

Perception is the process by which individuals connect to their environment. In layman’s terms, it is a sense-making process where people interpret their environment so to respond appropriately. As perception depends on the perceiver’s current state of mind, role and comprehension, here could always be errors in the interpretation and subsequent communication. Some forms of such distortions are as follows;

I. Types of Perceptual Distortions

– Stereotyping

Assign attributes to one solely on the basis of the membership to a particular large group or category (social, racial, religious or sexual orientations )

Eg: He is an Italian so he must know so much about Rome.

Very common, highly resistant to change once formed

– Halo effect

Generalize many attributes based on the knowledge of one attribute of the individuals without any consistent relationship between them

Positive effect à good attribute, negative effect à bad attribute

Reasons for occurrence

Very little experience with the other party

When the person is well known

When the qualities have strong moral implications

Eg: He is smiling so he must be telling the truth!

– selective perception

Singles out certain information that supports a prior belief and filters out information that does confirm the belief.

– Projection

Assign to others the characteristics or feelings that they possess themselves.

Eg: I feel upset to postpone things, so he also will probably get frustrated if I tell him to delay our meeting.

Framing

Frame is the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of situations based on their own experiences, leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions.

Type of Frames Used in Disputes

Substantive

Disposition about key issue and concern in the conflict

Neglects how parties will resolve the dispute

Outcome

Predisposition to achieving a specific result or outcome from the negotiation

Primarily used by distributive negotiators

Aspiration

Predisposition to a broader set of interests, needs and concern other than a specific outcome.

Primarily used by integrative negotiators

Process

Procedure on how parties will resolve their dispute.

Does not care much about specific key issues and concern in the conflict

Identity

Definition of oneself, based on membership of a number of different social groups such as gender, religion, ethnic origin, etc

Used to differentiate themselves from others and tend to be positive

Characterization

One’s definition of the other parties, shaped by prior or early experience and knowledge about others.

Tend to be negative in conflicts

Loss/ Gain

Definition of risk and reward associated with different outcomes

Can frame the outcome as loss or reward based on risk preference of other parties

For instance, a car buyer can view the transaction as a monetary cost of the purchase (loss) or the value (gain) of the item.

How frames work in Negotiation

Negotiators can use more than one frame

Mismatches in frames between parties are sources of conflict

Different types of frames or content from the two parties can cause misunderstanding and conflict escalation

Can reframe the conflict into the frame that is more compatible for both parties3. Particular types of frames may lead to particular types of agreements

Aspiration frames lead to integrative agreement

Outcome or negative frames can lead to distributive agreement

Specific frames may be likely to be used with certain types of issues

People discussing salary may be likely to use outcome frame.

People discussing relationship may be likely to use characterization frame

Parties are likely to assume a particular frame because of various factors

Differences in personality

Value differences

Power differences

Differences in background

Social context

Different approach on how frames work in negotiation

Interests

Frame the conflicts based on interest, not on their positions and demands

Rights

Use some standards and rules to decide who has legitimacy, who is correct and fair in resolving the problem

Power

Create win-lose situation

Resolve the conflict based on power – ability to coerce the other by imposing other types of forces – economic pressures, expertise, legitimate authority, etc

II. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation

Irrational Escalation of Commitment – stick with a failing course of action

Eg: a country continues to pour resources into an unwinnable war because the conflict has already happened.

Mythical Fixed-Pie Beliefs – assume that all negotiations are win-lose

Anchoring and Adjustment – effect of standard against which subsequent adjustments are made during negotiation

Issue Framing and Risk – more risk averse when a decision problem is framed as gain, and risk seeking when framed as a loss

Availability of Information- depends on how easily information can be recalled and used

The Winner’s curse – tendency to settle quickly and subsequently feel discomfort about a win that comes easily

Eg: the other party gives in too easily, so there might be something wrong with the outcome or I could have done better.

Overconfidence – tendency to believe their ability to be correct or accurate is greater than for real.

The Law of Small Numbers- tendency to draw conclusions from small sizes

Eg: assuming all negotiations as distributive based on a number of past negotiations or prior experiences

Self-Serving Biases- explain behaviors by making attributions to the person or situation

Eg: If I mess up, it’s bad luck. If you mess up, it’s your fault!

Endowment Effect – tendency to overvalue something you posess

Eg: One is likely to pay $3 for a mug if he is to buy from others, but values $7 on the same mug he owns.

Ignoring Others’ Cognitions – ignoring the other party’s perceptions and thoughts hence working with incomplete information

Reactive Devaluation- devaluing the other party’s concessions simply because the other party made them

Managing Misperceptions and Cognitive Biases in Negotiation

Be aware that misperceptions and cognitive biases can occur as negotiators gather and process information and discuss them in a structured manner within their team and with their counterparts

Careful discussion of the issues and preference can reduce the effects of perceptual biases

III. Mood, Emotion and Negotiation

Mood and emotion are different in specificity (emotion is directed at more specific targets), intensity (mood is less intense) and duration (mood is more enduring)